Perhaps it is too late in the game to start getting clever, but the following idea occurred to me earlier. I think I have figured out a surefire way to get the PO through the Senate, while bringing all the conservadems on board, and at the same time enticing Sen. Snowe along for the ride. And under my plan, the nation -- and specifically the citizens of red states -- would fare better than they would under opt out. What is this diabolical, nigh genius plan you ask?
What have the two arguably most-conservative Senators still open to HCR recently had to say about the PO?
Sen. Nelson, on Sunday:
A key Democratic senator says he may be open to a government-run insurance program that allows states to participate only if they ask to participate.
[snip]
Nelson says he is not excited about a public insurance plan in which states would be able to ''opt out.'' Instead, the Nebraska senator says he is more interested in a program in which states ''opt in.''
OK, whatever, right? Opt in sucks donkey balls, and opt out is definitely better. But let's check in with Sen. Snowe's idea:
But in a nod to congressional Democrats and some Republican voters, Snowe said Wednesday that she still intends to introduce an amendment that would add to the final bill a “triggered public option”— a government health insurance program that would be available in states where private companies fail to meet affordability standards for low- and middle-income consumers.
OK, so opt in by itself sucks, and the trigger by itself probably sucks. But what if we combined Sen. Snowe's trigger with Sen. Nelson's favored opt in?
The result is greater than the sum of the parts, I would argue.
First, you get a nationwide PO that any state can join on day one. And presumably, the blue states would opt to do so.
Those silly red states (just kidding, I love ya, red states!) would probably not opt in, much as we suspect they would all rush for the exits when they're allowed to opt out.
Ah, but not so fast, red states! There is that trigger, remember?
If a state chooses not to participate in the public option, then, as Sen. Snowe so charitably suggests, they have 3 or 5 years to meet certain coverage and affordability benchmarks. They don't do it, and they get the PO imposed on them. Triggery goodness.
So, my plan threads the needle and provides all the benefits of the opt out, while accounting for fears that red states will force their residents to do without. Under opt out, a state gives up on the PO, and that's it; they're done.
Under my trigger opt in, states can forego the PO, but only if they accomplish all the goals we expect the PO to accomplish. How many could actually do that?
So, any holes? Or should I go ahead and shoot this idea over to Sen. Reid? :)